The students hosting conservative pundit Ben Shapiro at University of California, Berkeley this week say their fingers are crossed in the hopes for a left-wing protest that could amplify his message.

“I am expecting a riot,” said Bradley Devlin, the secretary of the Berkeley College Republicans. “We can look at a political pattern. Whenever the right steps up in the Bay Area, the antifa is there to perpetrate violent acts and shut them down.”

Devlin, who has helped organize previous controversial speaking events, said he opposes violence in any form, but coyly added that violence perpetrated by his opposition might not be so bad, as it will provide increased publicity for Shapiro, who he called an “icon” and a worthy spokesperson for the conservative movement.

“Ben on a larger pedestal for the conservative movement is nothing but a good thing,” continued Devlin, speaking on a YouTube channel called the Lone Conservative. Devlin joked that he hasn’t decided whether he should stream video of Shapiro’s speech or just broadcast footage of the protesters outside.

Shapiro is a firebrand right-wing pundit, who denounces the “alt-right,” a far-right movement grounded in white supremacy, as anti-Semitic. Yet Shapiro provokes the ire of campus liberals by mocking what he calls excesses of political correctness; he’s known for his bigoted tirades against Muslims and transgender people.

Conservative student groups have long used provocative demonstrations and incendiary speakers to gain attention for their cause. The Young America’s Foundation, a conservative group closely affiliated with the Republican Party, provided the $9,162 security fee for the Shapiro event this week. YAF spends over $8 million a year on campus activism, including efforts to bring conservative speakers to college campuses — while filming and publicizing left-wing demonstrators to cast them as extremist.

The Leadership Institute, another GOP-aligned foundation that provides grants and funding to campus conservatives, makes the strategy explicit in its instructional materials. One Leadership Institute video explains how radical labor organizer Saul Alinsky’s strategies can be adopted for conservatives, including an effort to seize upon left-wing violence. The video shows how a 2009 anti-immigration speech by former Rep. Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina was interrupted by a brick thrown through the window. The violent act was filmed by a conservative student, which went viral on social media and gained mainstream media attention condemning the act.

“The protest by the liberal students failed because the focus of the story went from ‘students exposing an extreme speaker’s view’ to left-wing extremists deny free speech,” explained the LI instructor. “Anyone who watched the video was forced to sympathize with the congressman and the conservative students.” The strategy, the instructor declared, demonstrated how to turn “left-wing extremism into a conservative victory.”

LI, which sponsors over 1,300 student groups and publications on over 650 campuses, has produced dozens of Republican politicians and right-wing leaders trained with similarly provocative campus activism tactics. The group spends about $13 million a year on such efforts. James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, the pair whose undercover videos brought down the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), received financial support from the foundation world when they were students — O’Keefe via the LI and Giles via an internship with the YAF‘s journalism wing.

But the strategy has taken new heights in recent months. Newly energized leftist groups, which have increasingly embraced violence as a tactic and conservatives on college campuses as their primary target, are providing ample bait for conservatives hoping to shape media coverage and public opinion.

Berkeley, in particular, has become a hotspot for this particular dynamic. In February, a left-wing riot shut down the Berkeley event scheduled for Milo Yiannopoulos, a conservative pundit known for his intentionally offensive rhetoric and abusive insults hurled at minorities. The riot included violent attacks on students perceived as conservative, including at least one student who was reportedly beaten because he looked “like a Nazi” and $100,000 in damages to seemingly random businesses and campus buildings.

The incident transformed Yiannopoulos, primarily a star in online far-right subcultures, into a mainstream personality, with sympathetic coverage in major newspapers, including the New York Times, hours of coverage on cable news, and hundreds of thousands of new subscribers on his Facebook page.

Conservatives in Berkeley appear to be hoping for a similar reaction.

Over the course of the year, some left-wing activists, known largely as antifa, or anti-fascists, have similarly attacked random bystanders, journalists, and ordinary conservatives under the mantra of combatting fascism.

In Boston last month, a bald, white man with tattoos who traveled to Boston Commons to protest racism was beaten by antifa activists after being mistaken for a white supremacist. In Berkeley, antifa chased and violently attacked the leader of Patriot Prayer, Joey Gibson, a Japanese-American who says he disavows white supremacy. Journalists, in particular, have been threatened and attacked by antifa during recent demonstrations, including a local CBS News photojournalist in Richmond, Virginia, who was sent to the hospital with stitches and a KTVU reporter who was struck in Berkeley for filming a public demonstration.

Experts who study right-wing extremism have cautioned against antifa’s violent approach. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, recommends that demonstrators avoid violence and instead “organize a joyful protest” to distract from far-right speakers. Life After Hate, a nonprofit that works to de-radicalize racist extremists, has discouraged violent confrontations, noting that such tactics do nothing to stop hate, and are more likely to embolden neo-Nazi organizations.

Researchers have also found that violent protests and riots correlate strongly with public support for law-and-order politics, a dynamic that far-right politicians and law enforcement have long tapped into.

But for the Berkeley far left, some of whom even attacked a worker-owned cooperative during a demonstration supposedly centered on raising awareness about police abuse, there might be little that can be done to stop a violent confrontation with upcoming conservative speakers.

Devlin helped organize the February event for Yiannopoulos that ended in mayhem. The upcoming Shapiro event is scheduled for September 14, which will be followed by Yiannopoulos’s return to campus for “Berkeley Free Speech Week” on September 24-27, an event sponsored by a campus magazine called the Berkeley Patriot.

Top photo: Antifa members and counterprotesters gather during a right-wing No to Marxism rally on Aug. 27, 2017 at Martin Luther King Jr. Park in Berkeley, Calif.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Related

Contact the author:

In every political event there are likely to be infiltrators and agitators, some likely paid, some likely trained to take the spotlight and create a scene. Let’s always be cautious about attributing violence to someone who appears to be left wing, as we blame them for unfairly attacking someone who appears to be right wing.

These Republicans are engaging in gaslighting.
The left isn’t making them do anything. They’re the ones trying to stir up hate and arguing that certain people shouldn’t exist and/or have rights.
Don’t forget this!

The huge difference between speakers on one hand and violent thugs like Nazis, white supremacists, and KKK marching in the streets, the latter of which is violence and/or threat of violence per se. Attacking the former is absolutely unacceptable, but Antifa’s violence against the latter might be the right thing to do. This issue needs exponentially more analysis than this story provides.

Ben’s just a self-hating Jew who finds solace in the company of bigots and racists who, if he wasn’t their pet doggie, would be all too glad to demean him and, in some circles, string him up. So he denounces the Nazis. Who doesn’t besides the Nazis themselves? That’s a cheap hit. When Ben goes on his racist and anti-ethnic crusades, revealing himself as a cheap mouth for hire, he also reveals how shallow he is. If he appeals to anyone, they have to be equally shallow. While it’s fine to dump on Ben (he deserves it), he’s not really worthy of a violent response. No one with a shred of intellect will take him seriously. Consider him a bad joke on the far right, where such stunted persons gather. Then ignore him (after tossing a tomato, if you must). What a dud.

The thing the “left” (whatever the hell that means anymore) needs to be primarily worried about is passing PR tests administered by its mortal enemies, definitely. Not material outcomes. Not whether the vulnerable are protected and the oppressed liberated and the deprived given what they need to live or anything like that. /s

Here’s some food for thought, perhaps. I’m posting this as someone who is actually a little bit suspicious of the specific entity known as antifa for other reasons, but a lot of the arguments made in this piece that counters Chris Hedges’ stupid scolding are excellent, very much in line with what sounds to me like well-developed radical and revolutionary consciousness.

you write: “PR tests administered by its mortal enemies, definitely. Not material outcomes. Not whether the vulnerable are protected”

yet as the article points out, among other salient points, “researchers have also found that violent protests and riots correlate strongly with public support for law-and-order politics.”

it’s not PR tests. the point is that violent tactics do NOT protect the vulnerable, not until there is all-out war and so there is no other option. we are nowhere near that point. as the article correctly cites people who have been successfully working against fascism for decades, violence is the *least effective* method for protecting its victims. you use violence when there is no other option. we are nowhere near that point.

case in point: the violence-defenders like to say that only violence stopped the Nazis in WWII. That is true. We needed violence to stop them. But there were insurgent fascist movements in many other democracies, such as the US and UK. Those were not stopped by violence. They were stopped by people with sane heads rejecting that garbage philosophy out right. and in terms of numbers, control of the military, and many other points of comparison, fascists in the US today are much more like US fascists in the 1930s. They will be defeated by peaceful means. Violent means will exacerbate the conflict rather than stopping it. History shows this again and again.

Cornel West said very clearly that antifa in Charlottesville helped protect him and others from the right. I don’t know how you can be so sure of yourself when you say these tactics are unnecessary at this point.

I also don’t know how you can say “it’s not PR tests”, when immediately beforehand you said researchers talked about “public support”, et al. I’m not actually calling directly FOR violence, I am trying to say that if antifa helped protect people like Cornel West, that should be taken as a victory regardless of what the media says or how the organization is demonized.

The insurgent fascist movements in the 1930s in other countries like the US were always relatively small compared to the left-wing movements that existed at the time. “Sane heads” did not have to “reject” it. This argument makes no sense at all.

And furthermore I AM TALKING about the global left. People are so chauvinistic that they think this only applies to the US or Western countries. It doesn’t.

Thanks for the link – I’m glad someone else parsed through Hedges and dismantled his arguments. Although I generally like Hedges, sometimes I almost feel that he goes into some kind of religious trance to write his pieces, starting with a conclusion and building a narrative out of his extensive knowledge (and using standard propaganda techniques), weaving elaborate arguments and quotes that on first reading sound plausible (like Malcolm Gladwell) but upon deeper consideration, are build on sand. A little shaking and it collapses.

I don’t believe that preventing speakers from making legal* speech is an example of democratic values or that it prevents fascism.

Whatever happened to the principle that free speech includes unpopular speech?

Let the Milos of this world get up on their little soapboxes. If what they have to say is so stupid, wrong, or evil, by all means rebut it: challenge them to a debate. Have a counter protest somewhere else or the next day. Write an op-ed.

Showing up in black bandannas, threatening harm, blocking entrances, flipping cars, or even just screaming and screeching so that nothing can be heard – these are actions that suggest the Milos are so persuasive that their speech cannot safely be heard, lest it subvert our minds.

It shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of the public, and it actually builds up the dumb Milos as mighty and powerful.

Now, if the Milos are at the head of a column of bullies who are smashing windows in minority neighborhoods and the cops are doing nothing, then, yes, I could see the appeal of vigilante self-defence.

Ben Shapiro is usually a fairly reasonable guy. I am particularly irked by a young conservative, which Mr Shapiro (as a husband and father) can no longer rightfully claim, so I am not as hopeful as the moderators are.

I couldn’t watch the video, but anti-demonstrators were squabbling over some assholes protesting Sharia Law somewhere in Georgia.
I didn’t realize this was a ‘thing.’

You are falling into the same trap as Leighton Woodhouse whose feathers got ruffled because everyone did not acknowledge his “privilege” as a reporter and get out of his way. Instead Leighton writes that distorted article (“The Ugly Side of Antifa”) as revenge. Leighton ignored the major events of Aug 27 in Berkeley and instead attacked the minor actors who make up the tiny antifa — sensationalizing the minor scuffles during the Aug 27 Berkeley anti-hate counter-protest celebration. Those scuffles were less than one would see among the fans at a Raiders game and were entirely to blame on the police who withdrew and allowed them to occur. The police over-reacted by putting on gas-masks and threatening the peaceful crowd with tear gas canister guns while guarding a largely empty park. When the police were forced to deescalate by the sun — overheated on a hot day in their masks and heavy military garb, sweat pouring out their masks which they were constantly opening to get cooler air, they completely withdrew instead of placing a few cops near the handful of remaining alt-right nut-jobs. The police abandoned the strategy that had worked just fine to deescalate arguments between counter-protestors and alt-righters earlier in the day.

At that Berkeley event, Patriot Prayer Joey’s appearance was completely staged. It started with him showing up and taunting the crowd after the police withdrawal, and featured both non-black-clad individuals and black-clad individuals driving him from the park. I have to say this staged event reminded me of professional wrestling matches complete with large muscular participants, inflated bravado, costumes, and exaggerated reactions to minor blows. Even the spraying of the yellow aerosol, presumably pepper spray, seemed to miss the target but managed to be perfectly positioned for Joey’s camera man (Joey didn’t seem to show any ill effects). Even the fake arrest at the end appeared staged. I can’t believe you are defending this circus clown being used by the corporate state to create an antifa boogeyman. This is all being choreographed to justify further state crackdowns on the Left. Stop repeating Trump’s “on both sides.”

Do right-wingers really need the excuse of violence to enact their ideaology? No. The US government has been and continues to be a tool forcefully maintaining its ideaology of white supremacy. Violence is a convenient excuse, but if they don’t get what they want from trolling Berkeley, then they’ll find it else where. Hell, the right is proving they don’t even need to have legitimate reasons so long as it supports the ideas of white supremacy. President Trump is plain evidence of the insidious nature of the US and its white supremacist traditions and heritage.

It’s cute hearing so many “middle-class” whites constantly call for peaceful protesting as the only means to resist. The passive language is noticed too. “Resist” implies you’re just impeding flow, slowing it down, not stopping it. It’s easy to “resist” when you’re resting in relative comfort. Why would “progressive” white people work to undermine their advantage? They don’t, but they don’t want to appear blasé to the “suffering of minority communities”. So they hide, behind their language and laws, because the police do not harass them, the businesses don’t deny them, the government doesn’t jail them or deem them subhuman. They benefit implicitly from the white supremacy, they just don’t show their approval explicitly.

This isn’t a class issue either. If it was the left would be able to speak openly regarding ethnicity and culture instead of sweeping it under the rug as just a symptom of capitalism. So, supposed “leftists” need to re-examine how they speak and who they want to see in their version of the world too. Bernie Sanders is guilty of dodging issues with ethnicity because he has to pander to racist white people who vote for him, and who he identifies with! He said too that he has family and friends who voted for Trump, but somehow they can’t be racists because they don’t make much money? Please! They voted for Trump because he said the one economic thing that rallies most whites: I won’t let you be slaves! We already have people for that! We decide who wins and who loses in our economy!

It’s too easy to just do what centrists have done and just claim something as extreme so therefore the centrist move is sane. That’s equally dismissive of the raw issues that fester in this country.

There’s really no hope for the US if white people don’t wake up from their dream of cultural superiority.

Personally I prefer a football helmet – they can take a real blow and at the same time are custom made for using as a battering ram. These huge ogre fascists may be able to take a shot, but a head butt to an exposed chin from a helmet will turn their Nazi lights out ASAP. Coupled with a axe handle (fast and hard) for their soft spots like elbows, collarbones, hands, ribs, knee caps, etc. I’m all for standing nice and non violent right up until they lay a hand on me.

“Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.” Malcom X

And if you’re battling Nazis, you’re only battling yourselves, as Nazi is a contraction of National (as in National Grid, and National Geographic) Socialist.

Its full name was National (as in NPR, NARAL, NOW, National Endowment for the Arts, National Science Foundation, National Education Association) Socialist German Workers (as in workers.org, Working Families Party) Party.

cone of uncertainty: Nonsense. Despite the word in their name, put there because socialism was popular in Germany back then, the Nazis were not at all socialists. They liked to KILL socialists.
That being said, Croaker and its ilk are a big problem for the left.

The right loves socialism for the rich, asshole. Check yourself. They also love to pretend they’re for the “common man”, hence that “pro-worker” propaganda. They wouldn’t keep using it if it wasn’t effective.

20 million Soviet Communists did not die fighting the Nazis because they wanted anything close to the same kind of society. Hitler was also backed by Wall Street, the British aristocracy and US bankers and industrialists. In contrast, Lenin and the Bolsheviks overthrew the oligarchical aristocracy, turned Russian factories over to the workers and canceled foreign debts, pissing off the banks (the propaganda about Lenin being funded by Wall Street is a lie).

It’s you who doesn’t know anything. The Bolshevik revolution was funded by the notorious sealed train car containing $10 million in gold that accompanied Lenin back to Petrograd from Switzerland– financed by Wall Street banker Max Warburg.

Wall Street went 2-1 socialist Obama over McCain in 2008.

Socialists routinely battle against each other: Jiang Wing against Deng Xiaoping, Vietnam against Pol Pot, MPLA against UNITA, Shining Path against MRTA, Hillary against Bernie, Obama against Hillary, China against the USSR,….

Internecine rivalry is a mainstay of socialism–there is always only one true pure practitioner.

Prove Warburg was a Wall Street banker, nimrod. I never said Lenin didn’t have money from Germany. He did. Warburg financed Lenin because he thought it would mean Lenin would pull Russia out of the war, not because he wanted the proletariat to gain political power.

Also, prove Obama (and Clinton and Sanders for that matter) are socialist, why don’t you, since you keep saying he was?

Explain what the basis for the Nazi-Communist conflict was, then, you troglodyte, if it was just “internecine warfare” and you’re such an expert on socialism.

Yeah, you can’t delineate the parameters of the conflict that led to that alleged internecine warfare, can you? Because like I said, you don’t know anything. You can’t keep insisting the Communists and Nazis believed in the similar ideologies when the objectives of those ideologies are completely different.

Sophistry this egregious should be criminal. Nazis wanted to help Germany recover from its economic humiliations and conquer other nations via imperialist war, and enable the master race to dominate. Communists want to create a stateless classless society in which no one has the ability to dominate anyone. But to morons like you, this is all the same, right? Let me guess, you’re one of those pieces of shit who thinks any government action at all is socialism.

Nevertheless, here’s some basic history, for the record:
Nazis were Social Darwinists who killed people just for having the “wrong” genetics, used their state-run health care (started by Bismarck, not by the Nazis) to literally exterminate the mentally ill, the disabled, and the elderly, instituted the German Labour Front (a “union” that banned strikes and exercised extreme control over workers), and was capitalist-friendly and made a shitload of companies rich. Hitler also wanted to keep women from being employed outside the home, and said very explicitly that to him socialism simply meant someone who stood up for his nation.

By contrast, the USSR instituted a law that banned anti-Semitism and incitement of racial hatred against minority groups, offered nationalities oppressed by the czar their independence, provided universal health care, improved literacy and longevity of the Soviet citizens, created worker-run and worker-owned cooperative farms and worker’s councils that were democratically elected, was not capitalist-friendly and did not make industrialists and corporations rich (though temporarily they engaged in state capitalism in order to help them establish an industrial base). They also created all kinds of opportunities for women and did in fact achieve real socialism, in which the profit motive was done away with and the workers had democratic power and control over their workplaces.

Warburg was working for Kaiser Wilhelm in 1917. He did not work on Wall Street. Therefore you are just making shit up.

Also, you know what’s funny? You conservative types who say “socialism=fascism” inevitably end up using fascist and Nazi propaganda to advance your points. Your shit about the Bolsheviks being funded by Wall Street is the main example of this. You fuckers end up batting for Team Brown even as you try to convince us that you’re somehow better than Team Brown. It’s hilarious. And pathetic.

From the article : “…while filming and publicizing left-wing demonstrators to cast them as extremist.” Filming someone’s delinquency is a passive act, and is strongly encouraged when the police are involved. So, having ordered the cake, it seems you must eat it too.

Read history stop dropping on your knees as a diciple of holocaustianity ( the ONLY religion approved in the West). Read what the Commies did in Russia And the Ukraine that’s the Model the antifa trannies are following. The anti white Orcs of BLM are the ” sistahs” of this evil movement. Only difference is the BLM Orcs will after a supreme victory turn on the Antifa trannies ( cause their skin/ features are white) killed them rape them and eat them. The BLM Orcs will turn into Cannibals and eat Antifa with chillies and collard greens lmao

Don’t you see, Antifa is striking to prevent the people that we fought in WWII coming back to power. That’s why the Japanese-American Joey Gibson is targeted. Our grandfathers beat the Japanese before, now it is our turn.

It’s apparent that the alt-left doesn’t care about the PR repercussions from their attacks and that is telling. There aren’t nearly enough extremist right wingers to maintain their movement so they need to expand its definition to include anyone who is conservative or might oppose them.

Republicans running in the next election will probably make easy targets for branding as fascists and disrupting their campaigns but even more violently than the disruption of some Republican’s town hall meetings.

None of this violence will change anything politically but it may be solely for the purpose of increasing disruption in society to instill more fear and disgust with the government if it can’t control it.

The reason you are upset about this is because you know that Antifa and many others on the left just can’t control themselves and must use violence.

People don’t like it when people use violence so it puts you in a bad light.

How about this: Stop telling people that violence in pursuit of political ideology is OK. Control your emotions. The college Republicans know you can’t control yourselves so they are playing you like a fiddle. Don’t whine about it and try to force everyone to believe as you do under threat of violence, just control yourself.

To no-platform a person who’s speech is offensive kills free speech. The pathetic hypocrisy of the so called ‘anti-fascists’ is just what the fascists ordered. imho, Let the speaker speak and if the speakers words cause dissonance, then trade ideas with equal fervor and debate. You either have free speech or you don’t, there is no middle ground.

The government should not abridge free speech. But members of the community are not bound by the first amendment. If speakers utter fighting words and enough members of the community are outraged at that, then speakers of fighting words should not be surprised when people take them seriously and take concrete steps to ensure that those who issue poltiical threats to revive that which we’ve already defeated in war, such as whupping them upside the head.

You have to be an absolute maniac to be offended that Ben Shapiro is speaking in public. People are still allowed to have a different opinion. Why is everyone to the right of PC Principal labeled ‘far-right’, ‘alt-right’, ‘racist’, ‘bigot’ etc. etc. etc.

He’s a small government conservative who doesn’t believe the government should be prohibiting gay marriage or implementing drug laws. The guy has been in the ‘Never Trump’ camp since the primary. He started Harvard law when he was 20. If you’re not interested, don’t go or listen. No one is making you. But to be upset that he is speaking on campus is a sign of delusion and authoritarianism.

“THE STUDENTS HOSTING conservative pundit Ben Shapiro at University of California, Berkeley this week say their fingers are crossed in the hopes for a left-wing protest that could amplify his message.”

There’s literally nothing cited in your entire article to prove your title thesis. Your most damning bit was your own inference of a student’s quote that you never let us read. That’s pretty sneaky, Fang.

“Researchers have also found that violent protests and riots correlate strongly with public support for law-and-order politics, a dynamic that far-right politicians and law enforcement have long tapped into.”

“The incident transformed Yiannopoulos, primarily a star in online far-right subcultures, into a mainstream personality, with sympathetic coverage in major newspapers, including the New York Times, hours of coverage on cable news, and hundreds of thousands of new subscribers on his Facebook page.”

That first quote is from Bradley Devlin, “the secretary of the Berkeley College Republicans.” The link is to a 36 minute video made by Devlin. Apparently, that’s where he “coyly added that violence perpetrated by his opposition might not be so bad, as it will provide increased publicity for Shapiro, who he called an ‘icon’ and a worthy spokesperson for the conservative movement.” The other two quotes from the article explain why the republican students would hope for a violent protest against Shapiro. Fang makes a very strong case, but you don’t have to believe it.

The right wing (and especially the far right wing) of America doesn’t need an ‘incident’ of violent resistance to them, or active suppression of their deadly speech, to proclaim that they are the victims of, not the perpetrators of, violence, and the victims of, not the perpetrators of, attempts to muzzle speech. They have, are, and will in the future make, AND BELIEVE, those claims regardless, so ‘looking from the side’ (as a Holocaust survivor derided those Germans who protested that they didn’t support that regime, so therefore shouldn’t be considered a part of the problem) or meekly protesting isn’t going to accomplish anything different than getting in their faces (in all the senses of that phrase, including the violent ones) in that regards. Neither is it going to discourage ‘neutral’ people from attending or supporting counterprotests (the right has a long, unbroken history of becoming violent in the face of peaceful resistance, so you are at risk of getting beaten with a club, or worse, whether the counterprotesters are swinging clubs too or not).
Really, the only folks who care are those who can’t make the argument that there are no good fascists except for the most childlike one ‘he hit me, I didn’t hit him, therefore I am better’.

It wasn’t “Antifa” that stopped Joey Gibson, the “Debased” Stickman, Proud Boys and others from infiltrating San Francisco with their racist noise last month. In the streets, there were plenty of people not dressed in black or covering their faces. People not willing to accept a bunch of paid racist provocateurs cloaking themselves in the 1st amendment to once again cause trouble like in Berkeley and elsewhere. The corporate media including The Intercept must’ve missed that.

That’s your post-Nuremburg playbook again, isn’t it TimN? Yet another socialist embarrassment, dropped like a hot potato by his cult after it saw the public abandoned him. Always pointing fingers away from yourselves.

Is there any evidence that antifa alienates people from liberal or progressive politics? The same claim is asserted against Black Lives Matter, that their approach would change people ‘s minds about the underlying policies, as if BLM’s tactics would flip someone to “yeah, it is okay for cops to murder blacks with impunity.”

Would antifa alienate more potential allies than the shaming hectoring and blame throwing that is so prevalent within the “progressive” identity and intersectional cohorts?

Antifa is not organizing for liberal or progressive change, they are intervening to prevent the resuscitation of nazism and fascism.

If you want studies and numbers then sorry, I don’t have them. But the assertion seems pretty obvious to me. The only violent movements most Americans have ever supported were the ones carried by their government. Everything else just becomes an excuse for crackdowns.

As for BLM, they’re overwhelmingly peaceful and understand civil disobedience is more productive than violence. Antifa on the other hand take pride in beating neonazis. Covering their faces also doesn’t help when it comes to public opinion. But yes, if BLM was genuinely advocating violence it would alienate white America. They wouldn’t think “yeah, it is okay for cops to murder blacks with impunity.” because they’re not monsters, sure, but thinking police brutality is wrong doesn’t preclude them from being against bloody vengeance, no matter how warranted you might think it is.

Antifa is not organizing for liberal or progressive change, they are intervening to prevent the resuscitation of nazism and fascism.

That’s even worse. They’re sabotaging the work of well-intentioned activists in the name of repressing a bunch of angry white kids. But allow me to turn the tables here. Do you have any evidence at all that violent repression would be able to stop a Nazi renascence in the US? Because that seems like the most counter-intuitive assertion of all to me.

Nazis were socialists. National as in NPR, NARAL, NOW, National Science Foundation, National Education Association,…. Workers Party. As in workers.org. As in Working Families Party. Socialist Workers Party. Socialist. Workers. Party.

Only leftists gravitate to Socialist Workers Party scribbled above the doorbell.

Nazis were socialists. National as in NPR, NARAL, NOW, National Science Foundation, National Education Association,…. Workers Party. As in workers.org. As in Working Families Party. Socialist Workers Party. Socialist. Workers. Party.

Only leftists gravitate to Socialist Workers Party scribbled above the doorbell.

Nazis were like any right wing, authoritarian group or corporate, anti human promoters. They use popular platforms to gain power, once in power, they destroy those platforms because it threatens their power. And, they throw in some xenophobia to make sure the people have a face to blame for all their ills.

Trump is a perfect example. Ran as anti-war but has embraced more war. Ran on draining the swamp but installing swamp monsters. Ran on tax reform as a shield for fascist tax cuts. This playbook is old but idiots love falling for it. I blame the people for being suckers. The scorpions are doing what scorpions do.

How does antifa interfere with proactive activists (many antifa do that when unmasked) ?

I do not think that most Americans are particularly offended when the people we beat in wars are slapped down when they disrespect the sacrifice of those who came before us who won those wars. And this has no bearing on the effectiveness of activism. Activism fails for a range of other reasons.

Bullshit. Learn your history, the US was never at war against fascism per se. After WWII, the US rushed to recruit Nazis to work for the US government and to conspire to install fascist regimes around the world.

These so-called neo-nazis have absolutely nothing to do with Nazi Germany. No more than wannabe radical kids with Che Guevara t-shirt are Cuban revolutionaries.

Ah, so the answer is no, you haven’t heard of paraphrasing. Or at least you don’t understand what it is. Here is an example:

“Devlin, who has helped organized [sic] previous controversial speaking events, said he opposes violence in any form, but coyly added that violence perpetrated by his opposition might not be so bad, as it will provide increased publicity for Shapiro, who he called an “icon” and a worthy spokesperson for the conservative movement.”

I’ve quoted the author of the piece. What he wrote paraphrases what the subject told him in the interview that was conducted. Now, you can choose to believe that the author is accurately paraphrasing or not, but that is a paraphrase of a conversation that took place.

Wow. You have an amazing ability to reframe the argument. I can’t honestly say I understand your point or your argument. The author contends, from a conversation with Devlin, that Devlin believes violence by the opposition may actually increase publicity for Shapiro. The author is paraphrasing the subject, Devlin. Again, you can believe he is accurately characterizing Devlin’s comment or not. But it is an empty criticism to suggest that a paraphrase isn’t a quote. You’re right; it isn’t. And night isn’t day. Let’s all wring our hands because the author didn’t present this exactly as you wanted.

What people would that be? You have no idea who I am, how can you begin to categorize me as any kind of people?

I’ve expressed no opinion on the subject of the article. My only opinion — grounded in my experience of you — is that you don’t know what the function of a paraphrase is. I’m not sure what group that puts me in other than the group of people who understand the purpose and use of paraphrasing. I’m pretty sure we cut across racial, religious, political, or any other spectrum you might name. People who know what a paraphrase is are not a monolithic group, so while you may think I am lacking in brains, that tells you nothing about anyone else.

The thrust of Devlin’s comments consequential to this are contained in paragraphs 2 and 4; at best only in paragraph 3 he sets up what you wish to claim is an accurate paraphrasing of paragraph 4 . Except he misses by a mile, either haplessly or deliberately.

You don’t have a lot of brains, Bodhi. And moreover you’re thin-skinned about that.

I’d say you have an obsession with brains. It seems to be an area of insecurity for you that you project onto others. Nothing for me to be thin-skinned about in that.

I am not claiming that the paraphrasing is accurate — I’ve acknowledged that it might not be. I am certainly not claiming that it paraphrases any other part of the article because it does not. He is paraphrasing part of his conversation with Devlin. Period. Having paraphrased, he is under no compulsion to then quote the conversation. The function of a paraphrase is to summarize what someone has said.

Because the author has used his own words to characterize what Devlin told him in their interview, you are free to disbelieve what the author claims Devlin said or means by it. In fact, there is no guarantee that even the quotes are accurate. You either can bring a minimal level of trust to what you are reading or you cannot. Either way, it doesn’t make your comments any more true.

The criticism you made above is simply not valid. If you want to say you don’t believe the author has accurately characterized Devlin’s position, that would be a valid comment to make, and I certainly couldn’t provide evidence that you were wrong. But your argument so far is inconsistent and based on an inaccurate understanding of what you’re saying.

It would seem that only your cone of certainty prevents you from seeing the obvious logic in that. Given that, I’ll conclude by saying “of course, you’re right.” That seems the only acceptable answer in a conversation with you.

“coyly” is an unnecessary and biased, and consciously selected word, that exposes the author more than the subject.

Devlin, assuming he believes in opposing violence, has the same idea as Martin Luther King Jr. That peaceful protest best works if met by violence by the cops or racists. When only one side is violent, the non-violent can’t be blamed for violence. And so on. Good reasons, good optics, big gain in media coverage, public sympathy, etc.

Would a journalist at the time write “MLK Jr said he opposes violence in any form, but coyly added that violence perpetrated by his opposition might not be so bad”?

“Cesar Chavez fasted for several weeks, coyly saying that it would gain attention to the cause of immigrant and other laborers rights”.

“Coyly” may be unnecessary or even inaccurate for all we know. Biased? Maybe. But “bias” gets a bad rap. The key to whether bias is a problem is whether or not you develop a bias as a result of experience or simply mindless acceptance of a point of view. “Coyly” was definitely consciously selected.

None of that speaks to whether or not it was an accurate characterization. You make a good comparison when you present the MLK angle, but the Chavez example isn’t equivalent.

We weren’t there for the interview, so we can’t know if Devlin was being coy. What we do know is that some people are coy, and it is not inappropriate for a reporter to provide context if he or she is confident in his or her take on the subject. In fact, it matters that they do so since the goal should be to accurately reflect not only what was said but what was intended. It’s tricky, and reporters are bound to be wrong once in awhile, but so are we all.

I will explain it for you. The racists are roundly ridiculed and bullied and don’t have the support of mass media and college campuses. Their ideas are on fringes and their message is that of violence and hate. Proper progressive people fight this message with love and care and they try to understand where this hate is coming from and educate other human beings. Antifa claims to represent us and fight to protect us, but they use violence and intimidation against these fringe groups. I don’t need protection of thugs and scam. I can stand for my ideas with my head held high and continue push the message of antiviolence. The antifa scam is more danger to my ideas then the racists, cause antifa brings down those ideas and associates them with violence and cowardice that they perpetuate. They also get media and intelligencia (using this term loosely, cause no self-respecting man can support this scam in any way ) support, which encourages them to continue their ways. Their action will push many people towards the right (and not all right is racist) and will weaken chances of progressive success even further. The antifa scam is danger to progressive ideas then any white supremacist group can ever be.

BTW, that’s actually one of the most fascinating documentaries you’ll ever watch in your life–and for anyone else reading the thread. Particularly readers other than you, as they’re more inclined than you to understand it.

When only a relative few are willing to make any real sacrifice to further the quest for justice and equality then violence becomes one’s only effective option. A small minority protesting will change nothing. A large group protesting that is unwilling to force their demands will change nothing. A small minority willing to attempt to level the playing field will, if history is any guide, probably change nothing; but they will have a greater chance of achieving truly radical change.

We have talked for decades, centuries, milennia. And yet we continue to be oppressed. How many more must suffer, struggle, be murdered, succumb to despair before we are willing to say ‘Enough’? How much longer will we be bribed by trinkets we’ve been convinced we need, by art designed to keep us occupied and docile?

At what point does one’s non-violent opposition become nothing more than support for the status quo?

I don’t think that antifa are trying to change anything, rather to deny the neonazis and fascists the ability to grow their organizations by recruiting by raising the cost of associating in public with nazis and fascists.

You advocate labeling politics that are more conservative than Bernie Sanders’s with hyperbole, and then violently confronting people who peacefully gather to the right of Bernie Sanders under that general rubric invective that you’ve declared it to be.

That’s called violence, and felony assault, and psychosis, not to mention circular reasoning.

You are simply referring to a small part of what those who associate under the antifa and related banners do. It is certainly, especially these days, one of their most high profile and visible actions, but it is far from the only ones.

There are some who risk their lives fighting for justice and equality of persecuted groups in other countries. There are some who feed and clothe and provide shelter for this country’s many homeless. There are some who provide free education and training to some of our country’s least fortunate and marginalized groups.

But none of the above is what gets mainstream publicity. Because its a lot harder to demonize those actions, to manipulate the general public using them. It is quite easy however to get a country founded on genocide and theft, with a heavily propagandized citizenry fed a fantasy narrative of history, to hate a group willing to use force to stop further violence.

Now they are of course not above criticism. And many may simply be playing revolutionary. One could certainly argue that attacking relatively powerless pawns is in no way the solution. They certainly would stand on firmer ground were they to focus such force on the three most legitimate targets of it: politicians, political appointees, and weapon-carrying agents of the state.

I might have an easier time seeing Antifa as the ‘voice of the unheard’ if they weren’t all a bunch of privileged angry white college kids and/or the professors/teachers who indoctrinated them. The next person of color I see all decked out in black and wearing a mask at one of their counter demonstrations will be the first.

It is quite often the relatively privileged who are at the forefront of radical change. While at first glance it seems logical that those extremely unfortunate would or should be taking such leading roles this is not realistic.

If one is struggling to get by, if one has been denied opportunities their entire lives, if one has been looked down upon, seen as worthless, how can we expect them to be able to craft and maintain a fight against the most powerful empire the world has ever seen? We should not be surprised that the most forceful critiques and actions come from those with the time and opportunities and privilege to do so.

Best comment yet. The part I don’t get is, why do they both wear masks and pose for photos as at the top; and attack photographers? Say what you will about their impact on nazi recruitment. I for once agree with Chomski on that one. But to me, these people have shown the value of higher education, and it isn’t pretty at all. Again good comment Steve.

This is the Berniebros argument–either white males are presumed too conservative by prejudice or we are too radical by actions. Either we do what you say or we are disqualified for our demographics. It does not work that way.

As to being “bribed by trinkets,” the heart of the problem is spiritual, not economic. Specifically, materialism is the problem. As Siddhartha taught millennia ago, the more you get, the more you want. There is no end to desires except to shed them as much as possible. Those on the left who are upset mainly because they and their kind aren’t rich are as much of the problem as the ruling class. And as long as most Americans continue to prioritize getting rich (even though they never will), they will support policies that favor the rich who they delusionally expect to become. THAT’s what needs to change.

JFC. They are letting you put your bad takes into entire articles now? Are you still smarting from the ass kicking that @ciccmaher gave to you? The g you are digging is just getting deeper and deeper. Just. Fucking. Stop.

It’s amazing that people have such a hard time understanding this. Does nobody remember how 2 Live Crew went platinum? Antifa- you are being used to generate publicity for these people’s media careers. It doesn’t matter if you actually prevent anyone from speaking — they still get the publicity– which is the point of them speaking in the first place. That and to embarrass the university, town and the entire Left by painting them as a bunch of insecure children who can’t handle Free Speech.

Antifa’s tactics are moronic playing right into the fascist right’s hands.

There is one and only one tried and true tactical/strategic path to victory in this scenario–peaceful protest, peaceful exposure of fascists, ignoring/peacefully mocking fascists.

Frankly I’m with RJ Steele below–my honest guest is that the vast majority of Antifa/anarchist goons who can’t seem to grasp the above simple tactical truths is because they are agent provocateurs or police plants.

Empires are never brought down by anything except violence. Whether such violence comes from individuals within or without, or simply nature itself, history shows that such methods are they only effective empire-killers.

We do not have the time to continue attempting peaceful, incremental change. Those that have tried to do so for decades or longer, despite their sincere efforts, have failed miserably. The current empire is toxic to all life on earth, is a danger not only to the currently living generations but to all those in the near future as well.

These individuals who have attained such great power, status, wealth are not going to give up such stolen wealth voluntarily. We must force them to, by any means necessary.

I think there’s some truth in your claims, but organized, large-scale violent confrontation against the powers that be should be a last resort, and there are options still available to force the change this country needs. We owe it to ourselves and the world at large to fully explore all peaceful avenues to change before a Pandora’s box of violence is unleashed and can’t be put back in.

One could easily argue, given the violence perpetrated on the world by the American elite, that we owe it to them, those who have been so victimized by the dominant culture, to force change by any means necessary.

Calls for restraint, continued dialogue, largely come from those who are quite comfortable (immensely comfortable if one takes a global perspective). The box you are fearful of has already been opened. Currently its unleashed demons largely focus on the poor and marginalized, what we advocate is simply directing such demons on those elite few who rule over the rest of us.

It is long past time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.

One should not glorify such violence, however justified and necessary, one should not hold up its perpetrators as heroes, this is a mistake made all too often in revolutions. We should rightly, as you are, be adverse to such actions. But we cannot be so afraid of them that we consign our fellows to a lifetime in chains.

Most empires fall not because of violence directly, but more indirectly as its militarism and colonialist imperial endeavors (combined with lack of a healthy level of internal redistribution of “wealth” to its population to keep it restive) bankrupt the state leaving the door wide open to external forces to militarily defeat its imperial military forces in foreign lands or subject to internal political, social, cultural or violent upheaval, rebellion or splintering.

Lets focus on MLK since his foe was the same empire we face now. Did his movement actually accomplish much? Did it really provide radical change? Or did it simply tinker around the edges, leaving the door wide open for continued oppression?

And one should not forget that MLK had a much more nuanced view of violence than most of those who invoke his name when calling for non-violence.

One of the greatest blows to the empire in recent history was violent. ~25 individuals, with minimal funds, accomplished far more than hundreds of thousands peacefully doing whatever it is they do to try to achieve change. That is of course not to glorify the act, or to pass any kind of moral approval of the particular incident 16 years ago. But it did quite a good job drawing the empire into hopeless “imperial endeavors.”

Guerilla tactics are the best ways to level the playing field. But of course violence alone is not the solution, most of those movements fail, especially in the modern era. Which is why solidarity is important. Many have no interest in participating in violence, but if they morally condemn it, they way many do, they do immense harm to their shared cause and empower their common enemy.

I agree with your comments here — I’ve always believed that ends often justify means, though each case must be examined individually — but you’re wrong if you don’t think that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. accomplished anything substantial. Black people in the south weren’t even allowed in the same restaurants or bathrooms as white people, were confined to inferior separate schools and neighborhoods, and had to ride on the backs of buses and use separate drinking fountains, to name just a few examples off the top of my head.

Nonviolence should always be the preferred method, and Gandhi and Dr. King showed that it can be very effective in certain situations. But nonviolence in response to violence — which, BTW, is the ONLY definition of “nonviolence;” anyone can be nonviolent when the other side is also — is a strategy. As an absolute ideology it’s an idiotic abject failure.

I think that your comments were basically spot on, but you’re being too absolutist. Your arguments still work if you admit that Gandhi and Dr. King were substantially successful.

If you believe “left wing/liberal” motivated violence in the West holds a candle to the amount of “right-wing/conservative” I’d suggest taking some courses at the university level in American and History of Western Civ.

But believe what you choose, that’s your right, but doesn’t mean you are correct or accurate in your assertions.

I’m cynical enough to believe–considering that much of what antifa does seems to backfire and actually further the alt-right agenda–in the possibility of the group being composed in large part of alt-right plants and phony anti-fascists who have infiltrated antifa precisely for purposes of creating a public backlash against the movement.

I’m not in denial about the possibility of some genuine antifa members resorting to violence, particularly when dealing with such an emotionally-charged atmosphere. I’m saying only that it doesn’t make sense on any level if the tactic invites antipathy from the public, costs the group valuable credibility and allows the alt-right to play the victim card. It all seems massively counterproductive and hypocritical, so I’m just a bit skeptical of the perceived demographics and true nature of much of the membership of antifa as presented by the media.

Considering the amount of support I have seen for antifa on social media and even this very site (the whole “punch a nazi in the throat” trend) I find it entirely believable that there are enough misguided and troubled people on the left to fill the ranks of antifa. I’m not saying you are definitely wrong, since I have no proof one way or the other, but I am inclined to think antifa is made up of legit leftists who don’t understand the damage they are doing or are too messed up in the head to care.

That’s false equivalence. As long as your strategy and tactics are sound, you can’t be too extreme in fighting for civil rights, the environment, or against war. That’s not to say that some on the left are not very foolish in their methods and even sometimes their ideologies, but the left and right are not equivalent by any objective measure.

You may be correct, I don’t have proof, either. Most who march with antifa are probably genuine. I’m anti-fascist, but I don’t identify with antifa, the movement that shows up looking for a physical confrontation, if indeed that’s what they do. Again, I have my doubts about that. I think for the most part, though, it’s the white-power faction showing weapons at their events, not the counter protesters, and that is specifically to intimidate and possibly bait antifa into over-the-top reactions. I read a report that the alt-right faction reportedly removed a barrier separating the two groups at Charlottesville, virtually ensuring a physical confrontation. I guess my main point is that the alt-righters aren’t wearing the white hats, no pun intended, and they sure as hell aren’t victims.

The question we should be asking is “who has the power to label”? None of us has any idea who on social media is legit or not. And we certainly don’t know who any of these protesters are. It’s not like they carry ID that says “I’m a liberal” or “I’m a conservative.” So what we think their beliefs are is largely speculation.

Concur, besides all the money being funneled into these groups.. by the real culprits..keeping the prolies and the poges battling one another so they won’t combine and go after the real culprits that matter

I have watched a lot of Ben Shaprio’s speeches, and I just don’t understand why people protest him. He’s a very intelligent, and reasoning person. I may not agree with everything he says, but he was actually the main person who turned me away from the left and to look at conservatism in a very different, and positive light.

Thats a fascinating line of inquiry! Considering the feds had a history of infiltrating dangerous groups like the KKK as well, you should also wonder how many of those torchbearers in Charlottesville were undercover.

Feds infiltrate both the left and the right, but more often than not, they infiltrate the right in order to provoke them to act as paramilitaries against the left (which, interestingly enough, might explain the attacks in Charlottesville), and they infiltrate left movements in order to disrupt and destroy them.

This is why I always take right-wingers whining about being persecuted by the state with a grain of salt. There may be legitimate cases, but it remains minimal compared to the persecution experienced by the left.

The dirty little secret is that people are the same on both sides – there is nothing about a liberal or conservative ideology that makes people particularly crazy. You can find roughly as many unhinged, violent, or chaotic people on the right as on the left, they just decorate themselves with different ideals.

Seems like we’ve created an environment that caters to them…… they live in bubbles that confirm their worldview, their media tells them their opponents are evil subhumans who require a forceful response, they get attention and praise for acting out.